Our system has found that you are using an ad-blocking browser add-on.

We just wanted to let you know that our site content is, of course,
available to you absolutely free of charge.

Our ads are the only way we have to be able to bring you the latest
high-quality content, which is written by professional journalists,
with the help of editors, graphic designers, and our site production
and I.T. staff, as well as many other talented people who work around the clock
for this site.

So, we ask you to add this site to your Ad Blocker’s "white list" or
to simply disable your Ad Blocker while visiting this site.

The European Court of Justice ruled earlier this week that citizens in its jurisdiction have the "right to be forgotten." With this right comes the requirement that Google and other search engines remove links to information that is irrelevant or no longer relevant. Now that the requirement is in place, Google has received more than 1,000 link removal requests.

Among those who reportedly are asking Google to take down links from its search results are a former British politician and a convicted pedophile. Given the broadness of the European High Court's ruling, almost anyone can request that personal data be taken down, effectively getting rid of their past.

Troubling Situations

The right to be forgotten is a tricky right to provide, as it opens the door for people to scrub away negative things from their past. Since the ruling used the terms "irrelevant" and "no longer relevant," it is hard to tell what sort of data can be removed, since relevancy is determined by context.

Names of individuals who have submitted link removal requests have not been provided but anonymous sources at Google did give an overview of the requests to UK newspaper The Telegraph. So far, a member of British Parliament seeking re-election, an individual convicted of possessing child pornography, and a doctor who received negative reviews online have all made requests, according to The Telegraph.

Individual privacy rights should always be protected but at the same time, there are concerns that the European Union court ruling will have unintended negative consequences to society. Within just three days, more than 1,000 people have asked for links to be removed, and there is no telling how many people will make requests moving forward.

It is concerning to think that someone with a criminal record would be able to have that sort of information removed from Google just because it is no longer relevant. Even if a provision were to be added that excluded criminals from the law, situations could arise where someone was investigated multiple times for a crime like child pornography but never arrested. Then, if that person's information was removed from Google, they could be hired without an employer having easy access to more detailed and important information.

Many Opponents

Even people who have fought against the National Security Agency's data collection and spying efforts by other governments don't seem to support the European high court's decision in this case. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales -- who has spoken out against the NSA -- told the BBC on Wednesday that the European ruling is not beneficial for the Internet.

From a practical standpoint, as many people have pointed out since the ruling, Wales does not believe that Google or the EU will be able to enforce the rules. Google has also admitted that it doesn't truly know how to handle the ruling, as all of the requests must be looked at individually.

The overwhelming response to the EU's ruling has been negative, even for people who believe in online privacy. For the most part, people seem to agree with Google's viewpoint that if there is slanderous material online, people should contact the Web site that published it rather than attacking "middle men" like search engines.

If Wales is correct, there is so much opposition to the EU's decision that its ruling "isn't going to stand for very long."

While there are serious concerns with the European Court of Justice ruling, this article is a totally irrelevant example of bad journalism that creates issues of its own and distracts from the real issue.

In the legal system of a democratic society a person is innocent until proven guilty. The hypothetical example of the person investigated multiple times of a crime like child pornography exposes the journalist as a medieval witch hunter that does not understand what he writes about: a person investigated multiple times but not convicted is not a criminal. Discrimination against hiring such a person on the basis of unproven allegation disseminated through stupid writings like this article are very problematic not to say plain illegal. Search engines are just the conduit: garbage in, garbage out.

edna:

Posted: 2014-05-17 @ 5:55pm PT

Your article is shared nonsense. People are entitled to be forgiven and not there records flashed all over the place. They need to be able to move on life and not constantly being presented with such irrelevant information that no longer exist. grow up and stop being wicked. We have Rehabilitation of offenders Act so why should such news continue to prevent citizens moving on with their lives and where no more offences has being committed.